Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1181 | control, N = 591 | treatment, N = 591 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 116 | 50.73 ± 13.01 (25 - 74) | 50.35 ± 13.01 (25 - 74) | 51.09 ± 13.11 (28 - 73) | 0.763 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 118 | 0.827 | |||
f | 91 (77%) | 45 (76%) | 46 (78%) | ||
m | 27 (23%) | 14 (24%) | 13 (22%) | ||
occupation | 118 | 0.622 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.7%) | 2 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 14 (12%) | 7 (12%) | 7 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 11 (9.3%) | 5 (8.5%) | 6 (10%) | ||
other | 2 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.4%) | ||
part_time | 19 (16%) | 9 (15%) | 10 (17%) | ||
retired | 33 (28%) | 15 (25%) | 18 (31%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (3.4%) | 2 (3.4%) | 2 (3.4%) | ||
student | 2 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.4%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
unemploy | 29 (25%) | 18 (31%) | 11 (19%) | ||
marital | 118 | 0.889 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
divore | 11 (9.3%) | 7 (12%) | 4 (6.8%) | ||
in_relationship | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
married | 32 (27%) | 16 (27%) | 16 (27%) | ||
none | 61 (52%) | 29 (49%) | 32 (54%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
widow | 7 (5.9%) | 3 (5.1%) | 4 (6.8%) | ||
edu | 118 | 0.349 | |||
bachelor | 27 (23%) | 10 (17%) | 17 (29%) | ||
diploma | 22 (19%) | 15 (25%) | 7 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
postgraduate | 11 (9.3%) | 5 (8.5%) | 6 (10%) | ||
primary | 8 (6.8%) | 2 (3.4%) | 6 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 15 (13%) | 8 (14%) | 7 (12%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 27 (23%) | 15 (25%) | 12 (20%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (5.1%) | ||
fam_income | 118 | 0.972 | |||
10001_12000 | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (5.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (5.1%) | ||
14001_16000 | 6 (5.1%) | 2 (3.4%) | 4 (6.8%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (2.5%) | 1 (1.7%) | 2 (3.4%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (3.4%) | 3 (5.1%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
20001_above | 22 (19%) | 12 (20%) | 10 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 18 (15%) | 10 (17%) | 8 (14%) | ||
4001_6000 | 12 (10%) | 5 (8.5%) | 7 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 10 (8.5%) | 6 (10%) | 4 (6.8%) | ||
8001_10000 | 9 (7.6%) | 4 (6.8%) | 5 (8.5%) | ||
below_2000 | 24 (20%) | 12 (20%) | 12 (20%) | ||
medication | 118 | 105 (89%) | 53 (90%) | 52 (88%) | 0.769 |
onset_duration | 116 | 15.05 ± 10.40 (0 - 56) | 16.10 ± 11.34 (1 - 56) | 13.97 ± 9.31 (0 - 35) | 0.272 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 114 | 35.80 ± 14.55 (10 - 65) | 34.04 ± 13.33 (10 - 61) | 37.55 ± 15.60 (14 - 65) | 0.200 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1181 | control, N = 591 | treatment, N = 591 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 118 | 3.17 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.29 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.05 ± 1.14 (1 - 5) | 0.285 |
recovery_stage_b | 118 | 17.88 ± 2.68 (9 - 24) | 17.86 ± 2.69 (9 - 23) | 17.90 ± 2.70 (13 - 24) | 0.946 |
ras_confidence | 118 | 30.14 ± 4.98 (18 - 45) | 29.97 ± 4.32 (19 - 40) | 30.32 ± 5.60 (18 - 45) | 0.700 |
ras_willingness | 118 | 11.94 ± 2.02 (7 - 15) | 11.88 ± 1.86 (8 - 15) | 12.00 ± 2.18 (7 - 15) | 0.751 |
ras_goal | 118 | 17.36 ± 3.13 (11 - 25) | 17.36 ± 2.84 (12 - 24) | 17.37 ± 3.42 (11 - 25) | 0.977 |
ras_reliance | 118 | 13.34 ± 2.84 (7 - 20) | 13.22 ± 2.64 (8 - 18) | 13.46 ± 3.04 (7 - 20) | 0.652 |
ras_domination | 118 | 10.02 ± 2.33 (3 - 15) | 10.32 ± 2.21 (3 - 15) | 9.71 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 0.156 |
symptom | 118 | 29.99 ± 9.62 (14 - 56) | 30.12 ± 9.71 (14 - 55) | 29.86 ± 9.62 (15 - 56) | 0.887 |
slof_work | 118 | 22.31 ± 4.75 (10 - 30) | 22.42 ± 4.25 (13 - 30) | 22.19 ± 5.24 (10 - 30) | 0.788 |
slof_relationship | 118 | 25.41 ± 5.90 (11 - 35) | 24.95 ± 5.65 (13 - 35) | 25.86 ± 6.16 (11 - 35) | 0.402 |
satisfaction | 118 | 20.58 ± 7.02 (5 - 35) | 19.76 ± 6.51 (5 - 31) | 21.41 ± 7.46 (5 - 35) | 0.205 |
mhc_emotional | 118 | 11.10 ± 3.86 (3 - 18) | 10.81 ± 3.72 (3 - 17) | 11.39 ± 4.01 (4 - 18) | 0.420 |
mhc_social | 118 | 15.15 ± 5.56 (5 - 30) | 15.20 ± 5.55 (7 - 30) | 15.10 ± 5.62 (5 - 29) | 0.921 |
mhc_psychological | 118 | 21.96 ± 6.45 (6 - 36) | 21.69 ± 5.91 (9 - 36) | 22.22 ± 7.00 (6 - 36) | 0.660 |
resilisnce | 118 | 16.67 ± 4.65 (6 - 30) | 16.20 ± 4.19 (6 - 24) | 17.14 ± 5.06 (7 - 30) | 0.278 |
social_provision | 118 | 13.73 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 13.36 ± 2.36 (8 - 20) | 14.10 ± 3.22 (5 - 20) | 0.154 |
els_value_living | 118 | 17.02 ± 3.07 (5 - 25) | 16.68 ± 2.68 (8 - 22) | 17.36 ± 3.41 (5 - 25) | 0.233 |
els_life_fulfill | 118 | 12.74 ± 3.40 (4 - 20) | 12.19 ± 3.17 (5 - 19) | 13.29 ± 3.56 (4 - 20) | 0.078 |
els | 118 | 29.75 ± 5.94 (9 - 45) | 28.86 ± 5.12 (17 - 38) | 30.64 ± 6.58 (9 - 45) | 0.104 |
social_connect | 118 | 26.42 ± 9.24 (8 - 48) | 27.14 ± 8.68 (8 - 45) | 25.69 ± 9.80 (8 - 48) | 0.400 |
shs_agency | 118 | 14.40 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 14.05 ± 4.66 (3 - 21) | 14.75 ± 5.55 (3 - 24) | 0.463 |
shs_pathway | 118 | 16.31 ± 4.00 (4 - 24) | 16.10 ± 3.71 (8 - 24) | 16.51 ± 4.28 (4 - 24) | 0.583 |
shs | 118 | 30.70 ± 8.71 (7 - 48) | 30.15 ± 8.02 (13 - 45) | 31.25 ± 9.39 (7 - 48) | 0.494 |
esteem | 118 | 12.61 ± 1.67 (10 - 20) | 12.75 ± 1.61 (10 - 18) | 12.47 ± 1.74 (10 - 20) | 0.381 |
mlq_search | 118 | 14.80 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 14.71 ± 3.31 (6 - 21) | 14.88 ± 3.86 (3 - 21) | 0.798 |
mlq_presence | 118 | 13.40 ± 4.28 (3 - 21) | 13.34 ± 3.81 (5 - 21) | 13.46 ± 4.73 (3 - 21) | 0.881 |
mlq | 118 | 28.19 ± 6.99 (6 - 42) | 28.05 ± 6.09 (12 - 40) | 28.34 ± 7.84 (6 - 42) | 0.824 |
empower | 118 | 19.31 ± 4.37 (6 - 30) | 19.03 ± 4.13 (11 - 30) | 19.59 ± 4.63 (6 - 30) | 0.490 |
ismi_resistance | 118 | 14.57 ± 2.62 (5 - 20) | 14.47 ± 2.16 (10 - 20) | 14.66 ± 3.03 (5 - 20) | 0.701 |
ismi_discrimation | 118 | 11.45 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 12.02 ± 3.08 (5 - 20) | 10.88 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 0.054 |
sss_affective | 118 | 10.02 ± 3.53 (3 - 18) | 10.22 ± 3.38 (3 - 18) | 9.81 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 0.534 |
sss_behavior | 118 | 9.68 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.07 ± 3.83 (3 - 18) | 9.29 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 0.263 |
sss_cognitive | 118 | 8.13 ± 3.67 (3 - 18) | 8.34 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 7.92 ± 3.64 (3 - 18) | 0.533 |
sss | 118 | 27.82 ± 10.06 (9 - 54) | 28.63 ± 9.94 (9 - 54) | 27.02 ± 10.20 (9 - 54) | 0.387 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.29 | 0.152 | 2.99, 3.59 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.237 | 0.215 | -0.658, 0.183 | 0.271 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.043 | 0.240 | -0.428, 0.514 | 0.859 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.508 | 0.342 | -0.163, 1.18 | 0.142 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.365 | 17.1, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.034 | 0.516 | -0.978, 1.05 | 0.948 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.281 | 0.542 | -1.34, 0.780 | 0.605 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.788 | 0.772 | -0.725, 2.30 | 0.310 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.0 | 0.663 | 28.7, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.356 | 0.938 | -1.48, 2.19 | 0.705 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.726 | 0.755 | -0.753, 2.20 | 0.340 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.06 | 1.077 | -1.05, 3.17 | 0.327 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.265 | 11.4, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.119 | 0.374 | -0.615, 0.852 | 0.752 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.643 | 0.299 | -1.23, -0.057 | 0.035 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.833 | 0.427 | -0.004, 1.67 | 0.056 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.4 | 0.419 | 16.5, 18.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.017 | 0.592 | -1.14, 1.18 | 0.977 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.446 | 0.502 | -1.43, 0.539 | 0.378 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.65 | 0.716 | 0.249, 3.06 | 0.024 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.369 | 12.5, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.237 | 0.523 | -0.787, 1.26 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.327 | 0.405 | -0.466, 1.12 | 0.422 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.04 | 0.577 | -0.088, 2.17 | 0.075 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.297 | 9.74, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.610 | 0.420 | -1.43, 0.214 | 0.149 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.315 | 0.426 | -1.15, 0.519 | 0.462 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.39 | 0.607 | 0.201, 2.58 | 0.025 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.1 | 1.253 | 27.7, 32.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.254 | 1.773 | -3.73, 3.22 | 0.886 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.151 | 1.096 | -2.30, 2.00 | 0.891 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.40 | 1.564 | -4.46, 1.67 | 0.375 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.4 | 0.618 | 21.2, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.237 | 0.873 | -1.95, 1.47 | 0.786 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.191 | 0.657 | -1.48, 1.10 | 0.772 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.304 | 0.937 | -1.53, 2.14 | 0.747 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.9 | 0.764 | 23.5, 26.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.915 | 1.080 | -1.20, 3.03 | 0.398 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.15 | 0.775 | -2.67, 0.367 | 0.143 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.85 | 1.105 | -0.319, 4.01 | 0.100 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.8 | 0.921 | 18.0, 21.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.64 | 1.303 | -0.909, 4.20 | 0.209 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.668 | 1.073 | -1.43, 2.77 | 0.536 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.411 | 1.531 | -2.59, 3.41 | 0.789 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.497 | 9.84, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.576 | 0.703 | -0.802, 1.95 | 0.414 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.353 | 0.506 | -0.639, 1.35 | 0.488 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.220 | 0.723 | -1.64, 1.20 | 0.762 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.746 | 13.7, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.102 | 1.055 | -2.17, 1.97 | 0.923 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.571 | 0.878 | -1.15, 2.29 | 0.518 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.232 | 1.253 | -2.69, 2.22 | 0.854 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.7 | 0.869 | 20.0, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.525 | 1.229 | -1.88, 2.93 | 0.670 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.732 | 0.992 | -1.21, 2.68 | 0.463 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.062 | 1.415 | -2.84, 2.71 | 0.965 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.592 | 15.0, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.932 | 0.838 | -0.709, 2.57 | 0.268 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.158 | 0.715 | -1.24, 1.56 | 0.826 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.42 | 1.020 | -0.574, 3.42 | 0.167 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.374 | 12.6, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.746 | 0.528 | -0.290, 1.78 | 0.160 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.617 | 0.470 | -1.54, 0.304 | 0.194 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.761 | 0.670 | -0.553, 2.07 | 0.260 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.407 | 15.9, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.678 | 0.575 | -0.450, 1.81 | 0.241 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.234 | 0.484 | -0.714, 1.18 | 0.630 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.293 | 0.690 | -1.06, 1.65 | 0.673 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.432 | 11.3, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.10 | 0.611 | -0.096, 2.30 | 0.074 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.580 | 0.411 | -0.225, 1.39 | 0.163 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.257 | 0.586 | -1.41, 0.892 | 0.663 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 0.773 | 27.3, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.78 | 1.093 | -0.363, 3.92 | 0.106 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.795 | 0.751 | -0.677, 2.27 | 0.294 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.038 | 1.071 | -2.06, 2.14 | 0.972 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.1 | 1.221 | 24.7, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.44 | 1.727 | -4.83, 1.94 | 0.406 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.22 | 1.217 | -1.17, 3.60 | 0.321 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.62 | 1.737 | -7.03, -0.220 | 0.041 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.1 | 0.665 | 12.7, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.695 | 0.940 | -1.15, 2.54 | 0.461 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.058 | 0.684 | -1.28, 1.40 | 0.933 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.825 | 0.976 | -1.09, 2.74 | 0.402 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.517 | 15.1, 17.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.407 | 0.730 | -1.02, 1.84 | 0.579 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.104 | 0.529 | -0.932, 1.14 | 0.845 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.034 | 0.754 | -1.44, 1.51 | 0.965 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 30.2 | 1.127 | 27.9, 32.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.10 | 1.594 | -2.02, 4.23 | 0.491 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.170 | 1.110 | -2.00, 2.35 | 0.879 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.832 | 1.584 | -2.27, 3.94 | 0.601 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.203 | 12.3, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.271 | 0.287 | -0.833, 0.291 | 0.346 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.014 | 0.310 | -0.622, 0.593 | 0.963 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.250 | 0.442 | -0.616, 1.12 | 0.574 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.459 | 13.8, 15.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.169 | 0.649 | -1.10, 1.44 | 0.794 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.158 | 0.604 | -1.03, 1.34 | 0.795 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.159 | 0.862 | -1.85, 1.53 | 0.854 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.552 | 12.3, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.119 | 0.781 | -1.41, 1.65 | 0.879 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.260 | 0.639 | -0.993, 1.51 | 0.686 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.099 | 0.912 | -1.69, 1.89 | 0.914 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 0.911 | 26.3, 29.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.288 | 1.288 | -2.24, 2.81 | 0.823 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.428 | 1.101 | -1.73, 2.59 | 0.699 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.053 | 1.571 | -3.13, 3.03 | 0.973 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.570 | 17.9, 20.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.559 | 0.806 | -1.02, 2.14 | 0.489 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.160 | 0.553 | -0.925, 1.24 | 0.774 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.424 | 0.790 | -1.97, 1.12 | 0.593 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.334 | 13.8, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.186 | 0.472 | -0.739, 1.11 | 0.693 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.015 | 0.460 | -0.916, 0.887 | 0.975 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.473 | 0.656 | -0.813, 1.76 | 0.473 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.415 | 11.2, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.14 | 0.587 | -2.29, 0.016 | 0.055 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.372 | 0.463 | -1.28, 0.536 | 0.425 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.400 | 0.661 | -0.894, 1.70 | 0.547 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.453 | 9.33, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.407 | 0.641 | -1.66, 0.849 | 0.527 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.105 | 0.498 | -0.872, 1.08 | 0.834 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.16 | 0.711 | -2.55, 0.232 | 0.107 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.481 | 9.12, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.780 | 0.681 | -2.11, 0.555 | 0.254 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.067 | 0.539 | -1.12, 0.989 | 0.901 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.632 | 0.769 | -2.14, 0.875 | 0.414 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.34 | 0.474 | 7.41, 9.27 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.424 | 0.670 | -1.74, 0.889 | 0.528 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.676 | 0.523 | -0.350, 1.70 | 0.201 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.31 | 0.747 | -2.77, 0.158 | 0.085 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.6 | 1.298 | 26.1, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.61 | 1.836 | -5.21, 1.99 | 0.382 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.680 | 1.323 | -1.91, 3.27 | 0.609 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.98 | 1.888 | -6.68, 0.719 | 0.119 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.29 (95% CI [2.99, 3.59], t(165) = 21.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.18], t(165) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.51], t(165) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.18], t(165) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.15, 18.58], t(165) = 48.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.05], t(165) = 0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.78], t(165) = -0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.30], t(165) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.97 (95% CI [28.67, 31.27], t(165) = 45.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.19], t(165) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.20], t(165) = 0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-1.05, 3.17], t(165) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.88 (95% CI [11.36, 12.40], t(165) = 44.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.85], t(165) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.06], t(165) = -2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-3.81e-03, 1.67], t(165) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.88e-03, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.36 (95% CI [16.54, 18.18], t(165) = 41.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.18], t(165) = 0.03, p = 0.977; Std. beta = 5.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.54], t(165) = -0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [0.25, 3.06], t(165) = 2.31, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.08, 0.95])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.22 (95% CI [12.50, 13.94], t(165) = 35.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.26], t(165) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.12], t(165) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.17], t(165) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.32 (95% CI [9.74, 10.90], t(165) = 34.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.21], t(165) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.52], t(165) = -0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [0.20, 2.58], t(165) = 2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.09, 1.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.12 (95% CI [27.66, 32.58], t(165) = 24.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-3.73, 3.22], t(165) = -0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.30, 2.00], t(165) = -0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-4.46, 1.67], t(165) = -0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.64e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.42 (95% CI [21.21, 23.63], t(165) = 36.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.95, 1.47], t(165) = -0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.10], t(165) = -0.29, p = 0.771; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.14], t(165) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.95 (95% CI [23.45, 26.45], t(165) = 32.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.03], t(165) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.37], t(165) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [-0.32, 4.01], t(165) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.76 (95% CI [17.96, 21.57], t(165) = 21.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.64, 95% CI [-0.91, 4.20], t(165) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.77], t(165) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-2.59, 3.41], t(165) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.81 (95% CI [9.84, 11.79], t(165) = 21.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.95], t(165) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.35], t(165) = 0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.20], t(165) = -0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.20 (95% CI [13.74, 16.67], t(165) = 20.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.17, 1.97], t(165) = -0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.29], t(165) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-2.69, 2.22], t(165) = -0.19, p = 0.853; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.69 (95% CI [19.99, 23.40], t(165) = 24.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.88, 2.93], t(165) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.21, 2.68], t(165) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.71], t(165) = -0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = -9.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.20 (95% CI [15.04, 17.36], t(165) = 27.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.57], t(165) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.56], t(165) = 0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [-0.57, 3.42], t(165) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.36 (95% CI [12.62, 14.09], t(165) = 35.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.78], t(165) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.30], t(165) = -1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.07], t(165) = 1.13, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.68 (95% CI [15.88, 17.48], t(165) = 40.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.81], t(165) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.18], t(165) = 0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.65], t(165) = 0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [11.34, 13.03], t(165) = 28.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.30], t(165) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.39], t(165) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.89], t(165) = -0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [27.35, 30.38], t(165) = 37.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.78, 95% CI [-0.36, 3.92], t(165) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.27], t(165) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.06, 2.14], t(165) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 6.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.14 (95% CI [24.74, 29.53], t(165) = 22.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-4.83, 1.94], t(165) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.17, 3.60], t(165) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.62, 95% CI [-7.03, -0.22], t(165) = -2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.74, -0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.05 (95% CI [12.75, 15.35], t(165) = 21.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.54], t(165) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.40], t(165) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.74], t(165) = 0.84, p = 0.398; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.10 (95% CI [15.09, 17.11], t(165) = 31.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.84], t(165) = 0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.14], t(165) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.51], t(165) = 0.04, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 8.61e-03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.15 (95% CI [27.94, 32.36], t(165) = 26.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-2.02, 4.23], t(165) = 0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.00, 2.35], t(165) = 0.15, p = 0.878; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-2.27, 3.94], t(165) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.36) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.75 (95% CI [12.35, 13.14], t(165) = 62.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.29], t(165) = -0.95, p = 0.344; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.59], t(165) = -0.05, p = 0.963; Std. beta = -9.37e-03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.12], t(165) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.07e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.71 (95% CI [13.81, 15.61], t(165) = 32.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.44], t(165) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.34], t(165) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.53], t(165) = -0.18, p = 0.854; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.34 (95% CI [12.26, 14.42], t(165) = 24.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.65], t(165) = 0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.51], t(165) = 0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.89], t(165) = 0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.27, 29.84], t(165) = 30.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-2.24, 2.81], t(165) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.73, 2.59], t(165) = 0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-3.13, 3.03], t(165) = -0.03, p = 0.973; Std. beta = -7.63e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.03 (95% CI [17.92, 20.15], t(165) = 33.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.14], t(165) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.24], t(165) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.97, 1.12], t(165) = -0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.82, 15.13], t(165) = 43.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.11], t(165) = 0.40, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.89], t(165) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -5.73e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.76], t(165) = 0.72, p = 0.471; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.02 (95% CI [11.20, 12.83], t(165) = 28.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.02], t(165) = -1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.71, 4.81e-03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.54], t(165) = -0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.70], t(165) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.33, 11.11], t(165) = 22.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.85], t(165) = -0.63, p = 0.525; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.08], t(165) = 0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-2.55, 0.23], t(165) = -1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.07 (95% CI [9.12, 11.01], t(165) = 20.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.55], t(165) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.99], t(165) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.14, 0.88], t(165) = -0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.34 (95% CI [7.41, 9.27], t(165) = 17.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.89], t(165) = -0.63, p = 0.527; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.70], t(165) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-2.77, 0.16], t(165) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.63 (95% CI [26.08, 31.17], t(165) = 22.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-5.21, 1.99], t(165) = -0.88, p = 0.381; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.27], t(165) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.98, 95% CI [-6.68, 0.72], t(165) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 540.523 | 549.948 | -267.261 | 534.523 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 541.094 | 559.944 | -264.547 | 529.094 | 5.429 | 3 | 0.143 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 832.118 | 841.543 | -413.059 | 826.118 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 836.703 | 855.553 | -412.351 | 824.703 | 1.415 | 3 | 0.702 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,018.452 | 1,027.877 | -506.226 | 1,012.452 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,017.715 | 1,036.565 | -502.857 | 1,005.715 | 6.737 | 3 | 0.081 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 702.673 | 712.098 | -348.337 | 696.673 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 702.925 | 721.775 | -345.463 | 690.925 | 5.748 | 3 | 0.125 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 866.189 | 875.614 | -430.095 | 860.189 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 865.369 | 884.219 | -426.685 | 853.369 | 6.820 | 3 | 0.078 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 820.178 | 829.603 | -407.089 | 814.178 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 814.063 | 832.913 | -401.032 | 802.063 | 12.115 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 764.491 | 773.916 | -379.246 | 758.491 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 763.660 | 782.510 | -375.830 | 751.660 | 6.831 | 3 | 0.077 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,205.739 | 1,215.164 | -599.869 | 1,199.739 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,209.658 | 1,228.508 | -598.829 | 1,197.658 | 2.081 | 3 | 0.556 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 981.129 | 990.554 | -487.564 | 975.129 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 986.973 | 1,005.823 | -487.487 | 974.973 | 0.156 | 3 | 0.984 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,053.707 | 1,063.132 | -523.854 | 1,047.707 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,055.019 | 1,073.869 | -521.510 | 1,043.019 | 4.688 | 3 | 0.196 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,129.702 | 1,139.127 | -561.851 | 1,123.702 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,132.358 | 1,151.208 | -560.179 | 1,120.358 | 3.344 | 3 | 0.342 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 903.753 | 913.178 | -448.876 | 897.753 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 908.590 | 927.440 | -448.295 | 896.590 | 1.163 | 3 | 0.762 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,055.820 | 1,065.245 | -524.910 | 1,049.820 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,061.209 | 1,080.059 | -524.604 | 1,049.209 | 0.611 | 3 | 0.894 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,105.693 | 1,115.118 | -549.847 | 1,099.693 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,110.496 | 1,129.346 | -549.248 | 1,098.496 | 1.197 | 3 | 0.754 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 985.850 | 995.275 | -489.925 | 979.850 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 984.591 | 1,003.441 | -486.295 | 972.591 | 7.259 | 3 | 0.064 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 830.134 | 839.559 | -412.067 | 824.134 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 830.753 | 849.603 | -409.377 | 818.753 | 5.380 | 3 | 0.146 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 852.078 | 861.503 | -423.039 | 846.078 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 854.800 | 873.650 | -421.400 | 842.800 | 3.278 | 3 | 0.351 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 853.579 | 863.004 | -423.789 | 847.579 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 853.906 | 872.756 | -420.953 | 841.906 | 5.673 | 3 | 0.129 |
els | null | 3 | 1,053.965 | 1,063.389 | -523.982 | 1,047.965 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,054.798 | 1,073.648 | -521.399 | 1,042.798 | 5.167 | 3 | 0.160 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,214.433 | 1,223.858 | -604.216 | 1,208.433 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,213.780 | 1,232.630 | -600.890 | 1,201.780 | 6.653 | 3 | 0.084 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,005.619 | 1,015.044 | -499.809 | 999.619 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,009.002 | 1,027.852 | -498.501 | 997.002 | 2.617 | 3 | 0.455 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 916.531 | 925.956 | -455.265 | 910.531 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 922.080 | 940.930 | -455.040 | 910.080 | 0.451 | 3 | 0.930 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,180.643 | 1,190.068 | -587.321 | 1,174.643 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,185.101 | 1,203.951 | -586.551 | 1,173.101 | 1.542 | 3 | 0.673 |
esteem | null | 3 | 632.903 | 642.328 | -313.452 | 626.903 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 637.698 | 656.548 | -312.849 | 625.698 | 1.205 | 3 | 0.752 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 899.404 | 908.829 | -446.702 | 893.404 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 905.289 | 924.139 | -446.645 | 893.289 | 0.115 | 3 | 0.990 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 951.332 | 960.757 | -472.666 | 945.332 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 956.813 | 975.663 | -472.406 | 944.813 | 0.519 | 3 | 0.915 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,126.254 | 1,135.679 | -560.127 | 1,120.254 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,131.933 | 1,150.783 | -559.966 | 1,119.933 | 0.321 | 3 | 0.956 |
empower | null | 3 | 945.342 | 954.767 | -469.671 | 939.342 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 950.682 | 969.532 | -469.341 | 938.682 | 0.660 | 3 | 0.883 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 795.645 | 805.070 | -394.822 | 789.645 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 800.164 | 819.014 | -394.082 | 788.164 | 1.481 | 3 | 0.687 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 853.817 | 863.242 | -423.909 | 847.817 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 855.770 | 874.620 | -421.885 | 843.770 | 4.047 | 3 | 0.256 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 883.820 | 893.245 | -438.910 | 877.820 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 884.147 | 902.996 | -436.073 | 872.147 | 5.674 | 3 | 0.129 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 904.378 | 913.803 | -449.189 | 898.378 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 906.683 | 925.533 | -447.342 | 894.683 | 3.695 | 3 | 0.296 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 898.378 | 907.803 | -446.189 | 892.378 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 899.927 | 918.777 | -443.963 | 887.927 | 4.451 | 3 | 0.217 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,235.860 | 1,245.285 | -614.930 | 1,229.860 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,236.923 | 1,255.773 | -612.462 | 1,224.923 | 4.937 | 3 | 0.176 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 59 | 3.29 ± 1.17 | 59 | 3.05 ± 1.17 | 0.271 | 0.241 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 27 | 3.33 ± 1.15 | -0.044 | 26 | 3.60 ± 1.15 | -0.561 | 0.392 | -0.276 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 59 | 17.86 ± 2.80 | 59 | 17.90 ± 2.80 | 0.948 | -0.016 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 27 | 17.58 ± 2.70 | 0.129 | 26 | 18.41 ± 2.70 | -0.233 | 0.269 | -0.378 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 59 | 29.97 ± 5.09 | 59 | 30.32 ± 5.09 | 0.705 | -0.123 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 27 | 30.69 ± 4.43 | -0.250 | 26 | 32.11 ± 4.41 | -0.616 | 0.245 | -0.489 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 59 | 11.88 ± 2.03 | 59 | 12.00 ± 2.03 | 0.752 | -0.103 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 27 | 11.24 ± 1.77 | 0.559 | 26 | 12.19 ± 1.76 | -0.165 | 0.051 | -0.827 |
ras_goal | 1st | 59 | 17.36 ± 3.22 | 59 | 17.37 ± 3.22 | 0.977 | -0.009 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 27 | 16.91 ± 2.85 | 0.229 | 26 | 18.58 ± 2.84 | -0.621 | 0.034 | -0.859 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 59 | 13.22 ± 2.84 | 59 | 13.46 ± 2.84 | 0.650 | -0.153 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 27 | 13.55 ± 2.44 | -0.211 | 26 | 14.83 ± 2.42 | -0.884 | 0.057 | -0.826 |
ras_domination | 1st | 59 | 10.32 ± 2.28 | 59 | 9.71 ± 2.28 | 0.149 | 0.360 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 27 | 10.01 ± 2.17 | 0.186 | 26 | 10.79 ± 2.17 | -0.634 | 0.192 | -0.460 |
symptom | 1st | 59 | 30.12 ± 9.63 | 59 | 29.86 ± 9.63 | 0.886 | 0.062 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 27 | 29.97 ± 7.71 | 0.037 | 26 | 28.32 ± 7.64 | 0.375 | 0.434 | 0.400 |
slof_work | 1st | 59 | 22.42 ± 4.74 | 59 | 22.19 ± 4.74 | 0.786 | 0.094 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 27 | 22.23 ± 4.03 | 0.076 | 26 | 22.30 ± 4.01 | -0.045 | 0.952 | -0.026 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 59 | 24.95 ± 5.87 | 59 | 25.86 ± 5.87 | 0.398 | -0.310 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 27 | 23.80 ± 4.91 | 0.390 | 26 | 26.56 ± 4.88 | -0.236 | 0.041 | -0.937 |
satisfaction | 1st | 59 | 19.76 ± 7.08 | 59 | 21.41 ± 7.08 | 0.209 | -0.397 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 27 | 20.43 ± 6.21 | -0.161 | 26 | 22.49 ± 6.18 | -0.261 | 0.229 | -0.496 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 59 | 10.81 ± 3.82 | 59 | 11.39 ± 3.82 | 0.414 | -0.299 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 27 | 11.17 ± 3.20 | -0.183 | 26 | 11.52 ± 3.18 | -0.069 | 0.685 | -0.185 |
mhc_social | 1st | 59 | 15.20 ± 5.73 | 59 | 15.10 ± 5.73 | 0.923 | 0.030 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 27 | 15.77 ± 5.05 | -0.168 | 26 | 15.44 ± 5.03 | -0.100 | 0.810 | 0.098 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 59 | 21.69 ± 6.67 | 59 | 22.22 ± 6.67 | 0.670 | -0.138 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 27 | 22.43 ± 5.82 | -0.192 | 26 | 22.89 ± 5.79 | -0.175 | 0.772 | -0.121 |
resilisnce | 1st | 59 | 16.20 ± 4.55 | 59 | 17.14 ± 4.55 | 0.268 | -0.337 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 27 | 16.36 ± 4.05 | -0.057 | 26 | 18.72 ± 4.03 | -0.571 | 0.035 | -0.851 |
social_provision | 1st | 59 | 13.36 ± 2.87 | 59 | 14.10 ± 2.87 | 0.160 | -0.407 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 27 | 12.74 ± 2.59 | 0.337 | 26 | 14.25 ± 2.58 | -0.079 | 0.036 | -0.823 |
els_value_living | 1st | 59 | 16.68 ± 3.13 | 59 | 17.36 ± 3.13 | 0.241 | -0.362 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 27 | 16.91 ± 2.77 | -0.125 | 26 | 17.88 ± 2.75 | -0.282 | 0.202 | -0.519 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 59 | 12.19 ± 3.32 | 59 | 13.29 ± 3.32 | 0.074 | -0.708 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 27 | 12.77 ± 2.72 | -0.373 | 26 | 13.61 ± 2.70 | -0.208 | 0.259 | -0.543 |
els | 1st | 59 | 28.86 ± 5.94 | 59 | 30.64 ± 5.94 | 0.106 | -0.625 | ||
els | 2nd | 27 | 29.66 ± 4.90 | -0.279 | 26 | 31.48 ± 4.87 | -0.292 | 0.177 | -0.638 |
social_connect | 1st | 59 | 27.14 ± 9.38 | 59 | 25.69 ± 9.38 | 0.406 | 0.311 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 27 | 28.35 ± 7.81 | -0.263 | 26 | 23.29 ± 7.75 | 0.520 | 0.019 | 1.095 |
shs_agency | 1st | 59 | 14.05 ± 5.11 | 59 | 14.75 ± 5.11 | 0.461 | -0.267 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 27 | 14.11 ± 4.29 | -0.022 | 26 | 15.63 ± 4.27 | -0.338 | 0.198 | -0.583 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 59 | 16.10 ± 3.97 | 59 | 16.51 ± 3.97 | 0.579 | -0.202 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 27 | 16.21 ± 3.33 | -0.052 | 26 | 16.65 ± 3.31 | -0.068 | 0.630 | -0.219 |
shs | 1st | 59 | 30.15 ± 8.66 | 59 | 31.25 ± 8.66 | 0.491 | -0.261 | ||
shs | 2nd | 27 | 30.32 ± 7.18 | -0.040 | 26 | 32.26 ± 7.13 | -0.238 | 0.326 | -0.459 |
esteem | 1st | 59 | 12.75 ± 1.56 | 59 | 12.47 ± 1.56 | 0.346 | 0.216 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 27 | 12.73 ± 1.52 | 0.011 | 26 | 12.71 ± 1.52 | -0.188 | 0.960 | 0.017 |
mlq_search | 1st | 59 | 14.71 ± 3.53 | 59 | 14.88 ± 3.53 | 0.794 | -0.071 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 27 | 14.87 ± 3.24 | -0.066 | 26 | 14.88 ± 3.23 | 0.000 | 0.990 | -0.004 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 59 | 13.34 ± 4.24 | 59 | 13.46 ± 4.24 | 0.879 | -0.048 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 27 | 13.60 ± 3.72 | -0.105 | 26 | 13.82 ± 3.70 | -0.146 | 0.831 | -0.088 |
mlq | 1st | 59 | 28.05 ± 7.00 | 59 | 28.34 ± 7.00 | 0.823 | -0.068 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 27 | 28.48 ± 6.23 | -0.100 | 26 | 28.71 ± 6.20 | -0.088 | 0.891 | -0.055 |
empower | 1st | 59 | 19.03 ± 4.38 | 59 | 19.59 ± 4.38 | 0.489 | -0.266 | ||
empower | 2nd | 27 | 19.19 ± 3.61 | -0.076 | 26 | 19.33 ± 3.59 | 0.126 | 0.891 | -0.064 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 59 | 14.47 ± 2.56 | 59 | 14.66 ± 2.56 | 0.693 | -0.103 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 27 | 14.46 ± 2.40 | 0.008 | 26 | 15.12 ± 2.40 | -0.252 | 0.319 | -0.363 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 59 | 12.02 ± 3.19 | 59 | 10.88 ± 3.19 | 0.055 | 0.639 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 27 | 11.65 ± 2.76 | 0.209 | 26 | 10.91 ± 2.74 | -0.016 | 0.332 | 0.414 |
sss_affective | 1st | 59 | 10.22 ± 3.48 | 59 | 9.81 ± 3.48 | 0.527 | 0.213 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 27 | 10.32 ± 2.99 | -0.055 | 26 | 8.76 ± 2.98 | 0.553 | 0.058 | 0.821 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 59 | 10.07 ± 3.70 | 59 | 9.29 ± 3.70 | 0.254 | 0.377 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 27 | 10.00 ± 3.20 | 0.032 | 26 | 8.59 ± 3.18 | 0.338 | 0.110 | 0.682 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 59 | 8.34 ± 3.64 | 59 | 7.92 ± 3.64 | 0.528 | 0.211 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 27 | 9.02 ± 3.14 | -0.337 | 26 | 7.29 ± 3.12 | 0.314 | 0.046 | 0.862 |
sss | 1st | 59 | 28.63 ± 9.97 | 59 | 27.02 ± 9.97 | 0.382 | 0.320 | ||
sss | 2nd | 27 | 29.31 ± 8.36 | -0.135 | 26 | 24.72 ± 8.30 | 0.457 | 0.047 | 0.911 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(159.10) = -1.11, p = 0.271, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.19)
2st
t(162.66) = 0.86, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.89)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(153.04) = 0.07, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.05)
2st
t(160.55) = 1.11, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.29)
ras_confidence
1st
t(135.08) = 0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.21)
2st
t(163.25) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.82)
ras_willingness
1st
t(134.77) = 0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.86)
2st
t(163.43) = 1.97, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.91)
ras_goal
1st
t(137.71) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.19)
2st
t(161.90) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.12 to 3.22)
ras_reliance
1st
t(133.36) = 0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.27)
2st
t(164.25) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.60)
ras_domination
1st
t(149.98) = -1.45, p = 0.149, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.22)
2st
t(159.98) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.96)
symptom
1st
t(126.24) = -0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.76 to 3.25)
2st
t(166.88) = -0.78, p = 0.434, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-5.81 to 2.51)
slof_work
1st
t(132.19) = -0.27, p = 0.786, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.49)
2st
t(164.96) = 0.06, p = 0.952, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.12 to 2.25)
slof_relationship
1st
t(130.45) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.05)
2st
t(165.94) = 2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.11 to 5.42)
satisfaction
1st
t(136.19) = 1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.93 to 4.22)
2st
t(162.65) = 1.21, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.31 to 5.42)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(130.59) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.97)
2st
t(165.87) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.09)
mhc_social
1st
t(136.72) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.19 to 1.98)
2st
t(162.37) = -0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.40)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(135.22) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.90 to 2.96)
2st
t(163.18) = 0.29, p = 0.772, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.69 to 3.61)
resilisnce
1st
t(138.05) = 1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.59)
2st
t(161.75) = 2.12, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (0.16 to 4.55)
social_provision
1st
t(140.46) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.79)
2st
t(160.82) = 2.12, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.91)
els_value_living
1st
t(137.24) = 1.18, p = 0.241, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.82)
2st
t(162.12) = 1.28, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.47)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(128.41) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.31)
2st
t(166.80) = 1.13, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.32)
els
1st
t(129.06) = 1.63, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.94)
2st
t(166.59) = 1.36, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.83 to 4.47)
social_connect
1st
t(129.87) = -0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-4.86 to 1.98)
2st
t(166.24) = -2.37, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.09, 95% CI (-9.28 to -0.84)
shs_agency
1st
t(130.94) = 0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.56)
2st
t(165.68) = 1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.80 to 3.84)
shs_pathway
1st
t(130.76) = 0.56, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.85)
2st
t(165.78) = 0.48, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.24)
shs
1st
t(129.48) = 0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.25)
2st
t(166.41) = 0.98, p = 0.326, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.94 to 5.81)
esteem
1st
t(155.81) = -0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.30)
2st
t(161.37) = -0.05, p = 0.960, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.80)
mlq_search
1st
t(143.45) = 0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.45)
2st
t(160.09) = 0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.77)
mlq_presence
1st
t(135.89) = 0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.66)
2st
t(162.81) = 0.21, p = 0.831, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.23)
mlq
1st
t(138.14) = 0.22, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.26 to 2.83)
2st
t(161.71) = 0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-3.14 to 3.61)
empower
1st
t(129.02) = 0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.15)
2st
t(166.60) = 0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.09)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(146.82) = 0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.12)
2st
t(159.79) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.96)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(134.14) = -1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.30 to 0.03)
2st
t(163.80) = -0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.23 to 0.76)
sss_affective
1st
t(133.53) = -0.63, p = 0.527, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.67 to 0.86)
2st
t(164.16) = -1.91, p = 0.058, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.19 to 0.05)
sss_behavior
1st
t(134.33) = -1.15, p = 0.254, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.57)
2st
t(163.69) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-3.14 to 0.32)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(133.74) = -0.63, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.75 to 0.90)
2st
t(164.03) = -2.01, p = 0.046, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-3.43 to -0.03)
sss
1st
t(130.61) = -0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-5.24 to 2.02)
2st
t(165.86) = -2.01, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-9.11 to -0.07)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(83.62) = 2.24, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.04)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(76.86) = 0.91, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.61)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(62.59) = 2.32, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.25 to 3.33)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(62.39) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.80)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(64.40) = 2.35, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.18 to 2.23)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(61.45) = 3.31, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.54 to 2.20)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(73.99) = 2.47, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.94)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(56.95) = -1.38, p = 0.343, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-3.79 to 0.69)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(60.69) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.46)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(59.57) = 0.88, p = 0.765, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.28)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(63.35) = 0.98, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.11 to 3.27)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(59.66) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.17)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(63.71) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.13)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(62.68) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.70)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(64.63) = 2.16, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.12 to 3.04)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(66.35) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.10)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(64.07) = 1.07, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.51)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(58.29) = 0.77, p = 0.888, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.16)
els
1st vs 2st
t(58.69) = 1.09, p = 0.563, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.37)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(59.20) = -1.93, p = 0.116, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.89 to 0.08)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(59.88) = 1.26, p = 0.423, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.28)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(59.76) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.22)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(58.96) = 0.88, p = 0.760, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.27)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(79.73) = 0.74, p = 0.919, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.87)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(68.60) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.23)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(63.14) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.67)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(64.70) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.87 to 2.62)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(58.67) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.87)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(71.28) = 0.97, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.40)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(61.96) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.97)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(61.56) = -2.08, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.07 to -0.04)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(62.09) = -1.27, p = 0.419, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.40)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(61.70) = -1.18, p = 0.487, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.44)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(59.67) = -1.70, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.01 to 0.40)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(82.36) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.52)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(75.90) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.81)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(62.20) = 0.96, p = 0.684, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.24)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(62.00) = -2.14, p = 0.072, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.24 to -0.04)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(63.93) = -0.88, p = 0.761, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.56)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(61.10) = 0.80, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.14)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(73.15) = -0.74, p = 0.928, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.54)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(56.76) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.35 to 2.05)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(60.36) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.13)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(59.28) = -1.48, p = 0.288, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.71 to 0.40)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(62.92) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.82)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(59.37) = 0.70, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.37)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(63.27) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.19 to 2.33)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(62.28) = 0.73, p = 0.930, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.72)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(64.16) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.59)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(65.81) = -1.31, p = 0.392, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.33)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(63.62) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.21)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(58.05) = 1.41, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.41)
els
1st vs 2st
t(58.44) = 1.06, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.30)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(58.93) = 1.00, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.23 to 3.66)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(59.58) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.43)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(59.47) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.17)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(58.69) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.40)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(78.64) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.61)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(67.97) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.37)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(62.72) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.54)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(64.22) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.64)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(58.41) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.27)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(70.54) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.91)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(61.59) = -0.80, p = 0.854, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.56)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(61.20) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.10)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(61.71) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.02)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(61.34) = 1.29, p = 0.406, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.73)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(59.38) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.98 to 3.34)